IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v120y2016i5p509-518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What can Europe learn from the managed care backlash in the United States?

Author

Listed:
  • Duijmelinck, Daniëlle
  • van de Ven, Wynand

Abstract

Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland have taken steps toward regulated competition on the health insurance market to enhance efficiency and consumer responsiveness. The rationale of giving the consumer a periodic choice of health insurer is that individual risk-bearing insurers are stimulated to effectively purchase and manage the care on behalf of their enrollees. For Europe this is largely a terra incognita, while the United States have at least fifty years of relevant experience. Twenty years ago the United States were confronted with a substantial backlash against managed care. Based on the US experience we come to the following lessons for Europe. First, the greatest backlash against managed care can be expected from the healthcare providers. Second, consumers are willing to give up to some extent their free choice of healthcare provider in return for a lower premium. Third, insurers should (be allowed to) offer consumers a choice between an insurance product with free choice of provider and lower-priced products with restricted reimbursement for non-contracted providers. Fourth, insurers should use input from consumers, provide them in a timely manner with relevant information about the (non-) contracted providers, and reassure consumers that in-network providers offer good quality care. Fifth, the development of national guidelines and quality indicators, with input from the medical profession, can increase the acceptance of managed care.

Suggested Citation

  • Duijmelinck, Daniëlle & van de Ven, Wynand, 2016. "What can Europe learn from the managed care backlash in the United States?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(5), pages 509-518.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:120:y:2016:i:5:p:509-518
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.03.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851016300550
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.03.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maarse, Hans & Jeurissen, Patrick, 2019. "Low institutional trust in health insurers in Dutch health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 288-292.
    2. Bes, Romy E. & Curfs, Emile C. & Groenewegen, Peter P. & de Jong, Judith D., 2017. "Selective contracting and channelling patients to preferred providers: A scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(5), pages 504-514.
    3. A Victoor & A E M Brabers & T E M van Esch & J D de Jong, 2019. "An assessment of the Dutch experience with health insurers acting as healthcare advisors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-13, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Regulated competition; Managed care; Health insurance; Selective contracting;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G22 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Insurance; Insurance Companies; Actuarial Studies
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I13 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Insurance, Public and Private
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:120:y:2016:i:5:p:509-518. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.